United States v. Linaldo Hernandez ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4395
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LINALDO MARTINEZ HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Linaldo Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cr-00022-REP-1)
Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Appellate Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, Laura Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Heather Hart Mansfield, Richmond, Virginia,
Daniel Taylor Young, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Linaldo Martinez Hernandez pled guilty, without a plea agreement, to illegal reentry
after deportation or removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2018). The district court
sentenced Hernandez to six months’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. On
appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the reasonableness
of Hernandez’s sentence. Although advised of his right to do so, Hernandez has not filed
a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
We review Hernandez’s sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Bolton,
858 F.3d 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). First,
we “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as . . .
improperly calculating[] the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing
to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2018)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). If there is no procedural error, we then must also consider
the substantive reasonableness of Hernandez’s sentence, “examin[ing] the totality of the
circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that
the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in § 3553(a).” United States v. Gomez-
Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 383 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213, 218 (4th Cir. 2019) (noting that “we are required
to analyze procedural reasonableness before turning to substantive reasonableness”). A
sentence must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to accomplish the § 3553(a)
2
sentencing goals. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “Any sentence that is within or below a properly
calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756
F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). “Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that
the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Here, the court correctly calculated Hernandez’s advisory Guidelines range, heard
argument from counsel, provided Hernandez an opportunity to allocute, and considered the
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. Because Hernandez has not demonstrated that his term of
imprisonment “is unreasonable when measured against the . . . § 3553(a) factors,” he has
failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness accorded his within-Guidelines sentence.
Louthian, 756 F.3d at 306. We conclude that Hernandez’s sentence is both procedurally
and substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In accordance with
Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Hernandez, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Hernandez requests
that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Hernandez. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3